Monthly Archives: August 2012

solus ipse*

Posted on by
16

I’ve not written in some weeks, and while I was initially inclined to apologize for it, I won’t. I didn’t have anything to say, and therefore if I’d forced something, it’d be weak or incomplete or boring and then I’d owe you an apology for wasting your time. I’m learning how to forgive myself for “failing,” and learning that not every glitch in the schedule is actually a failure to begin with. So, in short—I’m not sorry.

I started thinking about why I haven’t written, why I don’t have anything to say, and I realize that, as of late, I’ve become unspired. The lovely and talented Carrie at Cannibalistic Nerd has been having some fun with this idea but it really got me thinking about how it’s affecting me and my universe.

I am so disgusted with what’s going on around us, so baffled by all of it, that I don’t even want to address it. I can say this about things going on personally, and even nationally and globally. The stuff that’s going on personally is, well, personal, but that isn’t even the issue. It’s so beyond my ability to process that I just don’t even try. There are no words. Yay exes!

This week the RNC happened. UGH. I read two or three articles surrounding that circus, and again I am disgusted. So much so that I can’t even bring myself to a rant. It seems pointless. There’s nothing to work out, to shout about. The ridiculousness extends far beyond even the most intelligent, articulate response. I want to put my uterus in a protective steel caging and hide underground, far away from the toxicity that is attempting to take control of our country and my body. Yay America!

There are people suffering terribly from Hurricane Isaac, but since the levees in New Orleans held tight, the rest of the folks who are in absolute peril AGAIN in Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana aren’t receiving the media attention they deserve. Anyone going to have a concert for them? Fundraisers? Is Barry Manilow or Wyclef Jean or Lady Gaga or anyone going to jump on that? Yay Hollywood!

And yes, this might seem like a I’m-saying-I’m-not-going-to-rant rant, but each one of these examples is something I could write at length about. But I don’t want to. And that’s what concerns me.

I try to live by “do good, and good will be around you.” And for the most part, it’s true. But if I am to only surround myself with good things, good sounds, good images, I can’t look to the outside world for that, save for a couple of adorable puppy memes on Facebook. It’s forcing me into isolation. It is making me retract from the world around me. I feel so hypersensitive that I don’t even want to answer the phone when friends call because I don’t want to hear it. Whatever it is, I don’t want to deal with it. I’ve had enough.

It’s drained my ability to be introspective, to look to places for inspiration. I’m in full-on I-Don’t-Care mode. I’ve not read anything interesting. I haven’t even tried to read anything interesting.

Oh, that’s not true. I read a book that talks about the ill-effects of genetically modified wheat on the human body and how the government and the FDA have, in the past 50 years, produced a new type of wheat that allows wheat farmers to grow more and therefore make more money. Sounds great! Yay agriculture!

Except it has so many horrible effects on the human body, AND is packaged in “this is yummy and good for you!” packages. “HEART HEALTHY!” bursts on boxes. Reports of how replacing whole wheat is better for you. Everyone’s ordering their Subway sandwiches on whole grain bread… And it’s true. Wheat plays a tremendous role in your health, such as: diabetes, obesity, IBS and other digestive diseases, Gluten intolerance, high blood pressure… but they don’t want you to know that. Yay health!

I don’t want to feel this way. I don’t want to feel this sense of only being comfortable in disconnect. But it seems that everything around me lately needles my nerves and makes me recoil. I don’t want to feel detached from the world around me, especially when my entire goal, the reason for this blog was to explore it and understand it. Yes, it has to have a dark side, but everything is so dark these days, so dishonest and destructive and ulterior, it seems like the focus shouldn’t be on seeking truth, but dodging and surviving bullshit. Yay bullshit.

*I alone

custos morum*

Posted on by
10

In a conversation with a friend about all the presidential “stuff,” I wondered why the government doesn’t simply focus on issues that affect all of us: education, the economy, homeland security, etc. Instead, they use “moral” issues (gay marriage, abortion, etc), which, obviously tug at us emotionally and make it easier to sway us in either direction. We believe in certain things because “that’s how we were raised.”  My friend then shared (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all) this article with me, which discusses the idea that morality may in fact be biological.

It’s a long read (but so fascinating), so I’ll summarize: Basically, the hypothesis is that we are born with moral code. The studies cited in the article suggest there are five basic areas of morality (harm, fairness, community or group loyalty, authority and purity). They cite examples seen in toddlers and in monkeys that show behavior  that seems to be innate:  “Toddlers spontaneously offer toys and help to others and try to comfort people they see in distress.” And “The impulse to avoid harm… can also be found in rhesus monkeys, who go hungry rather than pull a chain that delivers food to them and a shock to another monkey.”

We have long believed that our environment, the way we were raised, and our society’s influence is what shapes our morality, but evidence is showing that it merely influences what is already there:

“The character traits called ‘conscientiousness’ and ‘agreeableness’ are far more correlated in identical twins separated at birth (who share their genes but not their environment) than in adoptive siblings raised together (who share their environment but not their genes). People given diagnoses of ‘antisocial personality disorder’ or ‘psychopathy’ show signs of morality blindness from the time they are children. They bully younger children, torture animals, habitually lie and seem incapable of empathy or remorse, often despite normal family backgrounds. (Pinker)

Our upbringing and experiences are what teach us to favor certain issues over others, for example, conservatives place higher importance on purity and liberals on fairness or community. But the impulses we have, the reactions we have toward these issues come from a much deeper place: our genes.

I immediately find this fascinating, but then it troubles me, to some extent. Although we all (or most of us) have the same biological, genetic foundation for right and wrong, we’ll never be able to tap into that universally and solve some of these problems or see them in a different way, because what causes us to place importance on some things over others will never be the same universally. These issues are circular, and are doomed to be cycled over and over again. We will never be able to boil it back down to its basics because we are not rhesus monkeys or toddlers. While our cognitive abilities grow as we grow, we lose some of those crucial basics, we personalize our moral decisions, and potentially twist them into illusions of morality. I wonder how difficult it would be for everyone to bring it all back down to the five basic, innate areas of morality. Could the millionaire just give money to the homeless? Someone will scream communism. Can abortion be made a private, personal, medical decision? Someone will scream murder. Can gay marriage just be called marriage? Someone will scream abomination.

The article suggests we filter our choices through two filters: practical and emotion. The example is vegetarians: the vegetarian who subscribes for health reasons sees it as logical for his or her health. The moral vegetarian does it because of animal cruelty. The latter is the one who wants more of us to subscribe to vegetarianism, to see what a disgrace it is to promote animal cruelty, while the practical vegetarian might tell us how much better he or she feels, but not begrudge us a cheeseburger.

The day that the leaders of this country start seeing our problems in a practical light, rather than a moral one will be the day that things begin to change. The name-calling, the mud-slinging, the “moralizing” of agendas—all of this just stirs up the knee-jerk emotion in us that is tied to the issue that has been inflated by our environment. But that reaction, the emotional reaction, is a powerful one. It takes some patience and forethought to find practical. But it goes so much further, does so much more good. Simplicity goes a long way, too. But we are such a long way from it, I’m not sure we know that… but our DNA does.

 

*keeper of morals

“Overthinking, overanalyzing separates the body from the mind.” ~Maynard James Keenan

Posted on by
8

One of the nice things about blogging is that you can look back and find out where you were at any point in your past. About a year ago, I wrote about feeling completely out of tune with myself, what I wanted, and what my goals were.

Over the past several days, new ambitions have emerged for me. While I am not yet ready to discuss the details, the foggy ideas and maybes I’ve been toying with concerning my professional life have not only become clear, but they are bright and shiny. Prospects are emerging. And I inadvertently discovered a new passion simply by working out with a friend.

I am also on a quest to achieve total wellness for myself. I’m working with a brilliant and wonderful “coach” who is going to help me learn new things about myself, my behaviors, and ways to achieve various goals I have set. Again, not ready to fully indulge you with details, but do stay tuned, because in time, I absolutely will share this with you.

When I think about how I’ve gotten to this point, I believe it’s because I simply let go a little bit. Being a control freak was something that I had to actively work to overcome. It was a shortcoming that I learned about several years ago during marital therapy (which didn’t do squat for the marital, but I learned tremendous lessons for myself). Over the past year, I’ve just let things unfold. I had to have faith and confidence that I would figure things out. There would be no more scrambling for ideas and answers. No more diving face-first into short-term solutions without thinking them through.

Last night I ran my ideas past Geekface and asked him to “devil’s advocate the shit out of them.” I want to make sure that my enthusiasm isn’t overshadowing a glaring hurdle or shortcoming in these ideas. We talked, and he asked good questions. Questions that I had solutions for. He’s on board, and he’s excited, also. Having his support and enthusiasm makes this ambition grow even more.

My goal within my goals has been to repair, fulfill, challenge, and grow all aspects of my life, to learn from the past and make the present and future better. To objectively evaluate what is going on in my world, and how to improve it, if it needs improving. How to accept it if it doesn’t. How to productively, not critically examine myself and my goals. I figured out what I don’t want. I figured out what isn’t good for me. Once I achieved that, I was able to clarify what I do want and need. I’ve learned how to identify cycles of complacency more quickly than before. I’ve learned that sometimes your ideas change. I’ve learned to be more objective and less punishing.

I’m excited about my new ventures. I can’t wait to embark on the steps that will get me there, to share my frustrations, challenges, and achievements here, too. I feel inspired by these prospects, and I wonder if may that is really the true nature of what DTU is supposed to be. Not that I won’t continue to ponder the “big” questions, but that is also a part of the totality of me. Part of my own wholeness, my wellness also depends on asking and engaging in the discussions we have here. Thank you for contributing to my wellness.

“Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind, withering my intuition, missing opportunities, and I must feed my will to feel my moment, drawing way outside the lines.” ~MJK (TOOL, “Lateralus” )

originem anima*

Posted on by
11

“The mind is instinctively impressed with the dignity of the idea of the evolution of the soul, which, with its corollary, the immanence of God, makes the divinity of man a fact in nature.”

I am thoroughly enjoying most of Rogers’s approaches to theosophy, still marveling at the many congruencies between the questions of today and those he raised 100 years ago. But I am confused by Rogers’s use of a particular word: soul.

His assertion (from what I can infer, as he does not outright define the word), is that, if we accept the immanence of God not only above us, but within us (God as in Supreme Being, not necessarily Christian or any other specific religion’s God), then we automatically have a soul, the divinity within us, and it too, much like our physical selves, has an evolution. It grows and changes just as slowly as a species, a universe—any life form. But this leap from the Immanence of God (chapter 2) into the Evolution of the Soul (chapter 3) leaves something out.

What is a soul? More importantly, is it enough to simply go with “everyone knows they have one” and move on to how it changes? The concept of soul is one of those that many would answer: “I know what it is, and I think I have one, but I can’t define it.”

But shouldn’t we? Shouldn’t we study the idea of soul, what it means to us, what we think it is, or maybe even, in the 21st century, what we think it isn’t? Rogers states: “Deep within humanity is intuitive religious belief. It is a natural faith that transcends all facts, like the faith of a child in its mother.” Is that soul? Or is that a mix of instinct and natural bond? After all, a child, if conditioned by certain neglect or abuse, will not have faith in his mother, once he learns she will hurt him or not be motherly. Does that mean that child is now soulless?

Rogers is also asserting that immanence of God forces us to “abandon belief in a miraculous instantaneous creation of man and the earth on which he exists.” In other words, theology does not accept creationism, but rather, evolution. Yet, you will find the idea of soul among all religions of the world, and perhaps their definitions are more clearly defined, as they deal with the soul’s movement from this existence to another one, whether it be heaven, reincarnation, return to the collective energy, etc. But it is also present among secular society. The vast majority of us believe we have one, even if we aren’t religious. Why? If we can’t define it, then why do we instinctively “know” we have one? Why do we speak of it so comfortably, as though it’s as ordinary as having eyes, or skin, or a brain?

Perhaps it is the terrifying idea of finality, the idea that we absolutely cease to be once our physical body dies. Even if one is not religious, that idea can be a terrifying one—it goes against our survival instinct. Perhaps the soul is merely a comfort, an idea that we can comfortably believe in without being “too religious” but also calming the terror of ceasing to exist. The soul can go on to be something that isn’t defined by a religion, a heaven or a hell, but a return to something greater, just so we are not reduced to nothing.

Is that what your soul does for you? At the moment, mine is insulted by this notion, but offers no clarity. Only a stubborn protest that it exists, but it doesn’t have to tell me why.

*the origin of soul

“The world has grown suspicious of anything that looks like a happily married life.” ~Oscar Wilde

Posted on by
23

This post originally appeared on my first blog, Constructive Compulsion on November 7, 2011. Some posts still live there, so please stop by and visit them.

In the wake of all the same-sex marriage debates going on today, I began to think about why so many people support an institution for which we seem to have so little respect. We want to give everyone the right to get married. But do we even know how to be married? I remembered having this very same question when I wrote this post.

In the past several weeks, I have learned more than enough stories about trouble and deception in marriages among couples I know. Some of these marriages are only a few years old; others, decades. And as I hear stories of infidelity, betrayals, cruelty, accusations, and even crimes committed by one of the spouses, I am left with a feeling that I can’t quite put my finger on. What makes it worse is all of the couples appeared to be in very happy, very solid relationships. If they were rocky, or relationships where they seemed to be simply tolerating one another, it would be different, and not nearly as shocking. But these are couples who, whether after years or decades, (superficially) stand for “happily ever after.”

I am not so illogical as to swing wildly in either direction on the ideas of love and marriage. I do not think my own very new relationship is somehow impervious to such damage, that the two of us are such morally lofty people that we might never hurt each other. Nor do I believe that we are guaranteed to somehow destroy our relationship and each other. In fact, I don’t think about this particular topic in terms of my own relationship’s future at all. Because I don’t have a crystal ball. Today, we’re good. Tomorrow, we’ll likely be good, too. Beyond that, it’s a crapshoot. And that’s reality. I won’t doom us (in either direction) via speculation and internalization of other people’s actions.

This issue provokes more of a bigger-picture, society-as-a-whole question: Are we somehow unrealistic in what we present as happy marriage? Do people do this stuff to each other more often than we think, and because it’s so “wrong,” we react with lynch-mob mentality, because it’s too uncomfortable to face the truth? Perhaps this is a psychological question rather than a moral one. We know what’s morally right and wrong. But we do these things anyway. We’re driven by emotion. Psychologically, we want what we want, and we hope the moral center of the brain will kick in and make us see the light, but sometimes want kicks right’s ass, and someone winds up in bed with someone else, or accuses his/her spouse of the same. Or any variety of crimes against matrimony.

I wonder if we are really unrealistic about what marriage really is. Or, at the very least, that there’s a dark side to things, too. And maybe technology and our sudden and very recent desire to take our lives so public is just shedding light on the dark corners. I find it absolutely impossible to believe that infidelity (in its various forms) has become exponentially more common; maybe it’s just become easier.

Assuming this is true leads me to another question: Why are we pretending? Why do we pretend that marriage can be this flawless thing? We are comfortable acknowledging some of the flaws in marriages: husbands expecting their wives’ servitude; wives frustrating husbands because they shop too much. But these are benign in the grand scheme of what really is apparently going on. If we are more realistic about human nature, about the darkness inside us, will this change the way we view marriage? Will it improve it? Or will it destroy it altogether?

I attended a wedding this weekend, and I won’t lie: Part of it gave me anxiety. Here’s this young couple, she’s all beautiful and they’re all hopeful that they are going to have this happily ever after future. My aunt and I were saying we “just hope they stay married.” But is that an unrealistic expectation? I couldn’t hold my own marriage together. We made all the same promises. I was all sparkly and beautiful and hopeful on my wedding day. We were married 13 months. And we do this, over and over, because the afore-mentioned people, the beacons of happiness, make us believe that it can happen for us.

And then we find out the dark, ugly truth. We find out that people lead double lives, that one spouse has absolutely no idea that the other is carrying on a full-blown relationship with another person; we hear about people who betray their spouses in other ways, by making false accusations, by indulging in other proclivities, by putting everything on the line by committing a crime… After literally decades of marriage.

It boggles my mind. And it makes me wonder if we aren’t doing all the new, young couples a complete disservice by not being realistic with them. Or maybe we hope they will be the ones to change thousands of years of behavior. That’s a tall order.